Growth, Debt, and the World Bank

by Herman Daly

When I was in graduate school in economics in the early 1960s we were taught that capital was the limiting factor in growth and development. Just inject capital into the economy and it would grow. As the economy grew, you could then re-invest the growth increment as new capital and make it grow exponentially. Eventually the economy would be rich. Originally, to get things started, capital came from savings, from confiscation, or from foreign aid or investment, but later out of the national growth increment itself. Capital embodied technology, the source of its power. Capital was magic stuff, but scarce. It all seemed convincing at the time.

Many years later when I worked for the World Bank it was evident that capital was no longer the limiting factor, if indeed it ever had been. Trillions of dollars of capital was circling the globe looking for projects in which to become invested so it could grow. The World Bank understood that the limiting factor was what they called “bankable projects” — concrete investments that could embody abstract financial capital and make its value grow at an acceptable rate, usually ten percent per annum or more, doubling every seven years. Since there were not enough bankable projects to absorb the available financial capital the WB decided to stimulate the creation of such projects with “country development teams” set up in the borrowing countries, but with WB technical assistance. No doubt many such projects were useful, but it was still hard to grow at ten percent without involuntarily displacing people, or running down natural capital and counting it as income, both of which were done on a grand scale. And the loans had to be repaid. Of course they did get repaid, frequently not out of the earnings of the projects which were often disappointing, but out of the general tax revenues of the borrowing governments. Lending to sovereign governments with the ability to tax greatly increases the likelihood of being repaid — and perhaps encourages a bit of laxity in approving projects.

Where did all this excess financial capital come from? Not from savings (China excepted), but from new money and easy credit generated by our fractional reserve banking system, amplified by increased leverage in the purchase of stocks. Recipients of new money bid resources away from existing uses by offering a higher price. If there are unemployed resources and if the new uses are profitable then the temporary rise in prices is offset by new production — by growth. But resource and environmental scarcity, along with a shortage of bankable projects, put the brakes on this growth, and resulted in too much financial capital trying to become incarnate in too few bankable projects.

So the WB had to figure out why its projects yielded low returns. The answer sketched above was ideologically unacceptable because it hinted at ecological limits to growth. A more acceptable answer soon became clear to WB economists — micro level projects could not be productive in a macro environment of irrational and inefficient government policy. The solution was to restructure the macro economies by “structural adjustment” — free trade, export-led growth, balanced budgets, strict control of inflation, elimination of social subsidies, deregulation, suspension of labor and environmental protection laws — the so-called Washington Consensus. How to convince borrowing countries to make these painful “structural adjustments” at the macro level to create the environment in which WB financed projects would be productive? The answer was, conveniently, a new form of lending, structural adjustment loans, to encourage or bribe the policy reforms stipulated by the term “structural adjustment.” An added reason for structural adjustment, or “policy lending,” was to move lots of dollars quickly to countries like Mexico to ease their balance of payments difficulty in repaying loans they had received from private US banks. Also, policy loans, now about half of WB lending, require no lengthy and expensive project planning and supervision the way project loans do. The money moves quickly. The WB definition of efficiency became, it seemed, “moving the maximum amount of money with the minimum amount of thought.”

Why, one might ask, would a country borrow money at interest to make policy changes that it could make on its own without any loans, if it thought the policies were good ones? Maybe they did not really favor the policies, and therefore needed a bribe to do what was in their own best interests. Maybe the goal of the current borrowing government was simply to get the new loan, splash the money around among friends and relatives, and leave the next government to pay it back with interest.

Such thoughts got little attention at the WB which was haunted by the specter of an impending “negative payments flow,” that is, repayments of old loans plus interest greater than the volume of new loans. Would the WB eventually shrink and disappear as unnecessary? A horrible thought for any bureaucracy! But the alternative to a negative payments flow for the WB is ever-increasing debt for the borrowing countries. Of course the WB did not claim to be in the business of increasing the debt of poor countries. Rather it was fostering growth by injecting capital and increasing the debtor countries’ capacity to absorb capital from outside. So what if the debt grew, as long as GDP was growing. The assumption was that the real sector could grow as fast as the financial sector — that physical wealth could grow as fast as monetary debt.

The main goal of the WB is to make loans, to push the money out the door, to be a money pump. If financial capital were really the limiting factor countries would line up with good projects and the WB would ration capital among countries. But financial capital is superabundant and good projects are scarce, so the WB had to actively push the money. To speed up the pump they send country development teams out to invent projects; if the projects fail, then they invent structural adjustment loans to induce a more favorable macro environment; if structural adjustment loans are treated as bribes by corrupt borrowing governments, the WB does not complain too much for fear of slowing the money pump and incurring a “negative payments flow.”

If capital is no longer the magic limiting factor whose presence unleashes economic growth, then what is it?

“Capital,” says Frederick Soddy,”merely means unearned income divided by the rate of interest and multiplied by 100” (Cartesian Economics, p. 27). He further explains that, “Although it may comfort the lender to think that his wealth still exists somewhere in the form of “capital,” it has been or is being used up by the borrower either in consumption or investment, and no more than food or fuel can it be used again later. Rather it has become debt, an indent on future revenues…”

In other words capital in the financial sense is the future expected net revenue from a project divided by the rate of interest and multiplied by 100. Rather than magic stuff it is an indent, a lien, on the future real production of the economy — in a word it is a debt to be repaid, or alternatively, and perhaps preferably, to not be repaid but kept as the source of interest payments far into the future.

Of course debt is incurred in exchange for real resources to be used now, which as Soddy says cannot be used again in the future. But if the financed project can extract more resources employing more labor in the future to increase the total revenue of society, then the debt can be paid off with interest, and with some of the extra revenue left over as profit. But this requires an increased throughput of matter and energy, and increased labor — in other words it requires physical growth of the economy. Such growth in yesterday’s empty-world economy was reasonable — in today’s full-world economy it is not. It is now generally recognized that there is too much debt worldwide, both public and private. The reason so much debt was incurred is that we have had absurdly unrealistic expectations about growth. We never expected that growth itself would begin to cost us more than it was worth, making us poorer, not richer. But it did. And the only solution our economists, bankers, and politicians have come up with is more of the same! Could we not at least take a short time-out to discuss the idea of a steady-state economy?

Yes, entirely convincing. While I completely agree, and hope for the same change in the dominant economic paradigm, there is a deeper story to tell — the more compelling story of how Empire set the cultural and social stage for corporations to take over from the rulers of previous empires, and how corporations perpetuate an aristocratic, misogynistic pattern for human society. The link above (http://livingeconomiesforum.org/empire) is from David Korten, who knows this story well. Another is Riane Eisler (http://www.rianeeisler.com/) whose research into the historical origins of how and why we’ve created such an unbalanced and uncaring economy — accompanied by the savage repression of women throughout history — tells the same story. These deeper stories make the case even more compelling for the types of changes that Dr Daly proposes.
–Rick Casey

My graduate school analysis of the Rwandan genocide provides numerous references which confirm these WB dynamics Prof Daly talks about. There, for one, Bretton Wood Institutional analysts provided the SAP policies which resulted in changes in the electric utility, increased unemployment, and the fodder for the Interahamwe.
The ILO, on the other hand, thankfully, provides an institution which has supported alternatives. Their report on co-operative financial institutions discusses European Co-operative banks and US and international credit unions which show at least the existence of an alternative platform for people to make more sustainable choices, along with the US based Shore Bank Pacific´s Ecodeposit program, and the PIRG´s Green Century mutual fund´s stock market activist strategy.

Sorry, the ILO report stops with co-op institutions. The rest are not evaluated by them. The programs mentioned could be compared with the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, and SRI funds to evaluate their relative abilities to optimize steady state principles or not, as Dr. Daly proposes in the case of the WB.

Thank you for a very informative paper on the great lengths the WB went to perpetuate the fallacy of economic growth through sovereign debt. Policy loans pique my interest in as far as a main feature seemed to be designed to bail out international banking. The European Union is looking to handle its problems in much the same way today.

I think you were taught correctly. Investment capital was derived from existing supplies of currency. The reason for its scarcity was that currency was based on specie money. Any substantial increase in the velocity of local currency would cause a rise in interest rates. This is the natural balance of supply and demand that curbed inflationary inclinations.
Sovereign nations could upset this balance domestically by the use of fractional reserve systems or political intervention. However, the international settlement of accounts on the gold system did not allow much leeway in the international field.
In 1971, the fiat money system replaced this tangible source of currency with a virtual source of money. The creation of this ‘virtual’ money became the result of a simple bookkeeping entry with debt on one side of the ledger and sovereign currency on the other side.
The Modern Theory of Money (MTM) made this possible. Based on this theory, the power of a sovereign state to tax its citizens and residents allows it to create money, to the extent that it can reasonably expect to collect those taxes. Obviously, sovereign debt immediately became the safest form of debt for the creditor.
At the domestic level, both sovereign and private debts contribute to the money supply. At the international level, sovereign debt is the primary driver of money creation. Although there are hindrances that skew this system, such as the petrodollar, IMF actions, and other geopolitical interventions; this is basically how the system works.
All of our financial institutions earn their profits from the creation of debt. There is no other sector as profitable as the proliferation of debt. The financial sector has grown to represent more than 40% of the entire GDP. Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve is itself, a private corporation. The owners of the financial sector are the most politically empowered group in the country. They have every intention of continuing to encourage debt through government sponsored or guaranteed loans.
You can be sure that any attempt to curb the current capitalistic system will be met with appropriate force. Influential support for change will be hard to find. We even educate our children to genuflect before the GDP.
You are absolutely correct about the increasing costs associated with resource destruction and the corresponding decrease in yields in terms of profit. Unfortunately there is little preparation for the day of reckoning that will occur soon; certainly in this century.
I am very interested in any practical approaches toward a steady-state economy with some chance of success. I am also interested in a means to weaken the current, corporatist economic system before it completely devourers the middle class.